Recent Posts

• 

  Standard Life v. R. – TCC: $1.2 billion asset bump “mere window dressing designed to mislead the Minister”

  Apr 24, 2015 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases

  Précis: Prior to 2006 Standard Life Assurance Company of Canada (“Standard”) only carried on a life insurance business in Canada. In 2006 it took steps that it believed resulted in it carrying on a life insurance business in both Canada and Bermuda.
  Standard Life v. R. – TCC: $1.2 billion asset bump “mere window dressing designed to mislead the Minister”READ MORE »
• 

  R. v. Martin – FCA: Tax Court cannot award costs for “inconsistent and irrational” conduct by CRA

  Apr 21, 2015 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Federal Income Tax
  • Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

  Précis: This is a decision on an appeal by the Crown from a costs award made by Justice Boyle in the Tax Court. The Crown assessed Mrs. Martin on payments made to her by her late husband at a time when he had income tax arrears.
  R. v. Martin – FCA: Tax Court cannot award costs for “inconsistent and irrational” conduct by CRAREAD MORE »
• 

  MacKay v. R. – FCA: No jurisdiction to allow an appeal based on the alleged unfairness of a provision

  Apr 21, 2015 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Federal Income Tax
  • Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

  Précis: This was an appeal by Dr. MacKay, a dentist with a January 31 year end. Because of the operation of sections 9 and 34.1 of the Income Tax Act he was required in 2006 to terminate a previously available deferral stemming from this non-calendar year end.
  MacKay v. R. – FCA: No jurisdiction to allow an appeal based on the alleged unfairness of a provisionREAD MORE »
• 

  Kruger Wayagamack Inc. v. R. – TCC: Taxpayer controlled by Kruger Inc. with 51% shareholdings

  Apr 21, 2015 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Federal Income Tax

  Précis: This is somewhat of an oddball case involving entitlement to refundable SRED credits.
  Kruger Wayagamack Inc. v. R. – TCC: Taxpayer controlled by Kruger Inc. with 51% shareholdingsREAD MORE »
• 

  Supreme Court dismisses leave application in Piersanti – Jarvis rule does not operate to exclude evidence in the TCC

  Apr 20, 2015 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Federal Income Tax
  • Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

  Précis: On April 16, 2015 the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed, with costs, an application for leave to appeal the Piersanti v. Canada decision of the Federal Court of Appeal which held that the Jarvis rule does not operate to exclude evidence in Tax Court proceedings.
  Supreme Court dismisses leave application in Piersanti – Jarvis rule does not operate to exclude evidence in the TCCREAD MORE »
• 

  Nanica Holdings Limited v. R. – TCC: Dividend refunds need to be paid in order to erode a corporation’s RDTOH balance

  Apr 20, 2015 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Corporate Tax
  • Federal Income Tax

  Précis: The taxpayer claimed dividend refunds in 2011 and 2012 which were partially denied by CRA. The denial was based on the fact that the taxpayer would have been entitled to dividend refunds in 2007 and 2008 had it filed its tax returns on time, but the returns were in fact filed outside the three year limitation period established by subsection 129(1) of the Income Tax Act.
  Nanica Holdings Limited v. R. – TCC: Dividend refunds need to be paid in order to erode a corporation’s RDTOH balanceREAD MORE »
• 

  Charania v. R. – TCC: Accounting error did not give rise to taxable shareholder benefit

  Apr 10, 2015 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Federal Income Tax
  • Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

  
  Charania v. R. – TCC: Accounting error did not give rise to taxable shareholder benefitREAD MORE »
• 

  Okoroze v. R. – TCC: Taxes and penalties confirmed on net worth assessments

  Apr 10, 2015 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Federal Income Tax
  • Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

  
  Okoroze v. R. – TCC: Taxes and penalties confirmed on net worth assessmentsREAD MORE »
• 

  Maxwell v. R. – TCC: Director cannot raise due diligence defence based on a client’s continuing payment defaults

  Apr 10, 2015 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Federal Income Tax
  • Personal Tax, Estate & Wealth Planning

  
  Maxwell v. R. – TCC: Director cannot raise due diligence defence based on a client’s continuing payment defaultsREAD MORE »
• 

  6379249 Canada Inc. v. R. – TCC: Miniature wireless printer development costs qualified as SRED

  Apr 09, 2015 By Bill Innes

  Categories:

  • Bill Innes on Current Tax Cases
  • Corporate Tax
  • Federal Income Tax

  
  6379249 Canada Inc. v. R. – TCC: Miniature wireless printer development costs qualified as SREDREAD MORE »